“The long and the short of Elg is that she was a natural born citizen because both her parents were citizens and she was born in the United States.”
The long and short of it is that they consider her a citizen, a native born citizen, and a natural born citizen based on her birth, and make no reference to her father or mother’s citizenship as relevant to any of those.
As stated in the decision, it states, “was born in the United States of Swedish parents then naturalized here...Her parents, who were natives of Sweden, emigrated to the United States sometime prior to 1906, and her father was naturalized here in that year.”
The failure to mention her mother may be due to them considering it irrelevant or assuming she was a naturalized citizen per the link I provided a moment ago in another post.
Please also see post 97. I explain how I think a court will approach the question of a natural born citizen, based on how Indiana’s courts did when Obama’s NBC was challenged.
A natural born citizen is a native born citizen, Mr. Rogers. And, both are citizens. The terms can be used interchangeably in certain contexts because the meanings of the terms overlap, much as the definition of a rectangle and a square overlap.
A square is a rectangle, and so it can be correctly called a rectangle. But, a rectangle isn't always a square. Likewise, a citizen isn't always a native born citizen, and a native born citizen isn't always a natural born one.
As far as making reference to her parents' citizenship, they most certainly did make such reference. Again, you provided the cite of factual findings from the decision yourself.